ArticleArquivos brasileiros de cardiologia2024
Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention during Off-Hours: One-Decade Experience from a High-Volume Cardiovascular Center.
Article in Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Worse Prognosis of STEMI Patients during Off-Hours: What are we Missing?Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe impact of performing a primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) off-hours on clinical outcomes is not well established.
objectiveCompare characteristics and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) of pPCI off-hours versus on-hours in a high-volume cardiology center.
methodsProspective cohort of patients who underwent pPCI for ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) from 2009 to 2019. We defined off-hours pPCI as workdays from 8pm to 7:59 am as well as weekends and holidays. We compared patients treated on- and off-hours as to baseline characteristics and 1-year events.
resultsA total of 2,560 patients were treated off-hours and 1,876 patients treated on-hours. The groups were similar for most of the baseline characteristics. A higher thrombus burden was seen in patients treated off-hours (50% x 45%; p < 0.01), and in this group the radial access was more frequently used (62% x 58%; p = 0.01). Procedural success was not statistically different between the groups (95.7% x 96.4%; p = 0.21). MACE rates were higher in patients treated off-hours at 30 days (10.2% x 8.5%; p = 0.04) and at one year of follow-up (15.4% x 13.1%; p = 0.03), driven by higher death rates at 30 days (7.8% x 6.1%; p = 0.03) and at 1 year follow-up (11.1% x 9.0%; p = 0.02).
conclusionIn a high-volume cardiology center, clinical characteristics, door-to-balloon times, procedural pPCI success and complication rates of STEMI patients treated on and off-hours were similar. However, patients treated off-hours presented higher MACE and mortality rates, in spite of similar MI and stroke rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.